Mitch / "ProfMTH" is about 46 years old and is an atheist and former Catholic. In his video, The Book of Job - Part One (at 0:57 - 1:03), Mitch says he was getting ready to graduate from high school in 1981 and at the same time "was considering entering religious life, to study for the priesthood." In a comment under his August 2009 video, The "Real" Paul, Mitch states, "I teach various law courses and﻿ courses on debate."

The prophetic portrait Christians present, heavily relies on misquotations, mistranslations, and misapplications of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures.

He starts out (2:01 - 2:35) by mocking differences in stated numbers of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, with video of three Christian teachers giving counts of "about 300," "more than 300" and "about 191." Of course, reasonable men can differ on such things: that in itself is not a controversial notion (I should think, anyway).

What I find amusing, however, is Mitch's seeming unawareness of ancient and medieval Jewish commentators, who far outdid Christian exegetes in totals of messianic prophecies: by a ratio of about 3 to 2. Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), the great Hebrew-Christian scholar, in his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols., 1883, revised eighth edition, 1912, vol. II), cited 456 passages in the Old Testament that Jewish commentators had interpreted as messianic (vol. II, Appendix IX: "List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Rabbinic Writings" / Talmudic Discussion of the Messiah," pp. 710-741). He stated on p. 710 (in the freely available Google Reader version):

The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from ther Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. . . . The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim . . . [and] from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us.

This sort of information doesn't fit in with Mitch's goal of "proving" that Christians are arbitrarily and dishonestly misapplying and misquoting alleged messianic passages. Nor does it harmonize very well with his polemics to state that Jewish commentators have long since outdone we miserably dishonest and desperate Christians.

We only cite "about 300" messianic passages, after all, but the ancient rabbis come up with a whopping 456. Christians can only conjure up a paltry 66% of the texts that the rabbis cite. I guess that proves beyond all doubt that we are dishonest and the rabbis were not. Or else it shows that the whole lot of Christian and Jewish religious fanatics were and are dishonest: in which case, this should be noted, whereas our critic chooses only to go after the supposed dishonesty of Christians and ignore even "worse" manifestations of these alleged shortcomings among the ancient Jewish rabbis.

Unless Christian apologists wish to say that Jesus was a deceptive false prophet removed from the land by God, they can't claim Zechariah 13:6 as a messianic prophecy about Jesus' crucifixion. Why would Christian apologists misuse a passage like this?

I guess they would do so for the same reason that prominent Jewish commentators used when they applied the passage to the Messiah:

Abraham ibn Ezra (Spain, 1092-1167) was one of the greatest Jewish scholars. He considered Zechariah 13 messianic (see: The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature, Joseph Sarachek, New York: Hermon Press, 1932).

Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508; originally from Spain) wrote more about the Messiah than any other Jew before him. He followed the Talmud and the Midrash in his interpretations, and considered Zechariah 9:9 and chapters 12-13 messianic.

So I suppose we are to conclude that ibn Ezra and Abravanel were too stupid to know that the context was referring to a false prophet and not the Messiah, thus sealing the fate of Zechariah 13:6 as a messianic passage? They, too, couldn't read or correctly interpret the simplest things, either, as Mitch thinks is the case with Christian apologists?

Or it could be a case of multiple application of a passage: a thing frequently seen in Scripture. One could possibly hold a number of plausible positions on the passage itself. That's not my immediate concern. My objection is, rather, to Mitch's hair-trigger, knee-jerk approach in saying that Christians are almost ubiquitously deliberately dishonest (or so one might get an impression from his polemics) when they interpret OT passages messianically.

Mitch then goes after Psalm 22, often used as a messianic passage by Christians. He states (6:20 - 6:33):

Psalm 22 in general, and Psalm 22, verse 16 in particular, is regarded as an apologetic brass ring, even though it's never cited by any New Testament writer in reference to Jesus.

It's true that Psalm 22:16 is never directly cited, but Psalm 22 is indeed cited by the NT writers and applied to Jesus. Since this is the case, then Psalm 22:16 is applied to Jesus by straightforward logical deduction, since the entire passage is a unity, about one figure. In other words, attribution and application can occur logically, without the necessity of direct quotation. Matthew and Mark both clearly cite Psalm 22:1:

Here is the most direct citation and attribution of fulfilled prophecy, in regard to Psalm 22:

John 19:23-24 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; [24] so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfil the scripture, "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."

Psalm 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.

Compare very similar passages and likely cross-citations in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and Luke 23:34. Since this cites Psalm 22:18: a passage that is a mere two verses away from 22;16 and clearly in reference to the same person, again, logically speaking, it follows that the NT writers also think that 22:16 applies to Jesus (just as they think 22:1 does as well). Here is yet another citation:

Hebrews 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, [12] saying, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee."

Psalm 22:22 I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee:

Direct references are made to three passages: 22:1, 18, and 22. In fact, it has been observed that no Psalm is cited more frequently than Psalm 22 in the New Testament (seven times: tied with Psalm 110). Mitch admits himself that all these passages are cited, in his Part IV of this series. But he wants to continue, for some odd reason, to say that it is highly significant that Psalm 22:16 itself is not quoted. And so he asserts (8:54 - 9:09, 9:24-29):

As I noted earlier, not one of the Gospel writers, indeed, none of the New Testament writers cites Psalm 22, verse 16 in reference to Jesus' crucifixion. Let's face it. They didn't set the prophetic selection bar all that high. . . . all of them passed on Psalm 22:16.

He continues on, making an interesting linguistic argument about Psalm 22:16 and whether "pierced" is an acceptable translation of the literal "like a lion". At least this actually has some degree of force.

I would submit in reply, a contextual argument. What does a lion do with prey, in the first place? Well, it pierces them with its teeth. What is "the power of the dog"? What is the danger of a "wide" mouth of a wild animal and "horns of the wild oxen"? Again, biting or gorging and piercing of flesh . . . That is clear enough. The context alludes to piercing of various sorts as well:

[13] they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion. . . .

[20] Deliver my soul from the sword,
my life from the power of the dog!
[21] Save me from the mouth of the lion,
my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen!

Therefore, following this possible line of argument, "pierce" at Psalm 22:16 would not be merely a Christian interjection designed to provoke images of crucifixion (as he insinuates), but rather, an acceptable rendering of what attacking lions do, with regard to context (Mitch's argument thus being reduced mostly to a distinction without a difference; i.e., "piercing" and what lions do with prey not being all that widely different concepts). See other examples of the same Hebrew word (Strong's word #738), referring to a lion:

1 Samuel 17:37 And David said, "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine."

1 Kings 13:26 And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, "It is the man of God, who disobeyed the word of the LORD; therefore the LORD has given him to the lion, which has torn him and slain him, according to the word which the LORD spoke to him."

Psalm 17:12 They are like a lion eager to tear, as a young lion lurking in ambush.

Ezekiel 22:25 . . . like a roaringlion tearing the prey . . .

Joel 1:6 For a nation has come up against my land, powerful and without number; its teeth are lions' teeth, and it has the fangs of a lioness.

Micah 5:8 . . . like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

Nahum 2:12 Thelion tore enough for his whelps and strangled prey for his lionesses; he filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh.

In Psalm 57:4, evil men are compared to lions: ". . . their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongues sharp swords." Psalm 58:6 refers to the "fangs" of lions. Daniel 6:24 states, "thelions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces."

An alternate argument (one that I myself favor, because it is more objective and based on hard manuscript evidence) would be to posit a textual dispute or change of some sort. The Septuagint (c. 150 B.C.) and the Vulgate (c. 400 A.D.) both had "piercing" and they were translated from Hebrew (the NT writers routinely followed Septuagint Greek readings), leading some scholars to believe that older Hebrew manuscripts had a "pierced" reading. In fact, one such ancient Hebrew manuscript from the Dead Sea area has been translated (5/6HevPsalms Scroll). The textual difference between "like a lion" and "they pierced" is a single letter.

The Qumran Psalters do not contain this verse. However, a scroll from the same era found at nearby Nahal Hever known as 5/6HevPsalms reads, "They have pierced my hands and my feet"! [Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 519] Though the documents were found in 1951 or 52, this reading was not discovered until around 1997! Further, it did not appear in print until The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible was published in 1999. The implications are enormous. Here we have a Hebrew text over 1,000 years older than the oldest known copy of the standard Hebrew Masoretic text, which supports the reading found in the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. No longer can Hebrew scholars claim that the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate are here faulty reflections of the original Hebrew. . . .

We will therefore expect English translations prepared after this scroll's reading came to press in 1999 to reflect and cite the reading in the Nahal Hever scroll. . . . Future editions of the NRSV, NJB, REB, and NAB may read "pierce," because they are usually at the forefront of versions that make use of Qumranic readings.

[ . . . ]

The deciphering of the contents of the 5/6HevPsalms Scroll has changed the tenor of all future discussions of the Hebrew text underlying Ps 22:16. . . . It is one of three Psalms scrolls found outside the Qumran (Dead Sea) area. This scroll is written in a Herodian bookhand dating between ad 50 and 68. Flint believes that the scroll originally contained all 150 psalms known in today’s Bible, but only portions from Psalms 7–18, 22–25, and 28–31 survive today . . .

This scroll’s surviving text relevant to our discussion is found in col. XI, which contains Ps 22:4–9, 15–21.

[Dave: it appears on p. 519 in the 2002 edition linked above; viewable with the amazon "Look Inside" feature]

The Mitch-generated Christian conspiracy to cynically insert "pierced" into the text is a questionable one, in any event, because many major English translations fail to do so (e.g., NAB, JB, NJB, NEB, REB, NRSV, Moffatt, Good News, NCV). But those don't reflect what is now the oldest known Hebrew manuscript (c. 50-68 A. D.). Other translations do a better job:

5/6HevPsalms They have pierced my hands and my feet.

KJV they pierced my hands and my feet.

ASV They pierced my hands and my feet.

NASB They pierced my hands and my feet.

NKJV They pierced My hands and My feet.

RSV they have pierced my hands and feet.

Confraternity they have pierced my hands and my feet;

Knox they have torn holes in my hands and feet;

Amplified they pierced my hands and my feet.

NIV they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Will he concede this argument and modify his opinion, in light of this, and retract this charge towards the dreaded "Christian apologists"? The answer (perhaps not surprisingly) is no. I discovered in Part IV, after I initially wrote this reply, that Mitch is aware of this new textual discovery, and isn't a bit fazed by it. He continues to act as if Christians are still at least guilty of an undue overconfidence.

Perhaps, however, he has toned down his insinuations of dishonesty regarding Psalm 22:16. Now, he uses the language of this not being a "compelling" messianic prophecy. But he didn't seem aware of the new evidence at the time of Part III, when the following "Masoretic-centered" analysis was his expressed opinion (6:42 - 8:45):

Christian apologists want this passage (Psalm 22, verse 16) and they put up quite a fight for it. . . . . "They pierced my hands and my feet." [NASB] Of course, the latter sounds a lot like a reference to the crucified Jesus, but "like lions [they maul] my hands and feet" [The Jewish Study Bible -- 2004] not so much. So what's going on here? Well, to put it in the light most favorable to Christian apologists, Psalm 22:16 is an extremely controversial and uncertain passage. To be sure, that's what some used to call a left-handed compliment, but it's the best, I think, that can be said for the Christian position. In the overwhelming majority of manuscripts that comprise the Hebrew Masoretic text: the official version of the Scriptures for Jews, Psalm 22:16 does not say, "they pierced my hands and my feet." It literally says, "like a lion my hands and feet." . . . the variants are several and it seems, none are determinative.

Lastly, Edersheim (ibid., p. 718) documents Jewish attribution of Psalm 22:7 (8 in Hebrew) and 22:15 (16 in Hebrew) to the Messiah, in the Yalkut. Again, therefore, regarding Psalm 22 in messianic fashion is not (exclusively) some disingenuous Christian invention for the sake of polemics and (as Mitch says) "misquotations, mistranslations, and misapplications of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures."

4 comments:

Well done Dave. I learned something new again today :)ps, I don't want to appear mean in saying so, but ex-Catholics are the WORST when it comes to slagging off the Catholic faith. They seem to have it in for anyone who is Catholic, go out of their way to promote anything that attacks religion in general and Catholicism in particular, and always seem to be pushing Atheism (I have someone on facebook like this).

It's almost like Atheism is their religion, which is strange because it is the belief in ... nothing ...

It's telling that anti-Christian polemicists would claim that Christians are mistaken to accept the majority reading "they have pierced my hands and my feet" rather than the later Masoretic reading, "like a lion my hands and my feet." Does it not occur to them that non-Christian Jews might have as much a motive to "tweak" the text here to deprive the Church of a compelling prooftext as Christians might have to argue for the reading that is attested by the ancient manuscripts (and now by the earliest available Hebrew text)?

Even apart from the Qumran discovery, context and grammar alone give us good reason to accept the ancient manuscript testimony. KARU (they have pierced) differs from KARI (like a lion) by only one letter, but KARU makes more grammatical sense than KARI.

Excellent point, my friend. Everything has to prove Christian bias and ignorance: so it seems in atheist polemics. We can only do our best to puncture the bubble of the host of fallacies employed for this purpose.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).